The Republican Party is holding a "firehouse primary" -- Saturday, April
26, 2014 -- in the 10th Congressional District to select a nominee who
will run in the General Election to replace Congressman Frank Wolf.

-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

On Saturday, April 26, I will host the Grand Opening of my legislative district office in Williamsburg. Please stop by between 10:00 a.m. and noon for light refreshments and to ask questions about the legislative process and state-related matters.

My office is located at 1201 Jamestown Road, at the corner of Jamestown Road and Route 199. Following the grand opening, regular office hours will be 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. To set an appointment with me or my aide, please call 757-223-9690.

Candidate Obama, during a campaign speech in 2008, said that he wanted an army inside the United States that is as powerful and well armed as our military is outside the United States. Those words have stuck in my mind never to be forgotten. What would be the intended purpose of such an internal army vis-a-vis the police?

All these agencies and their high-tech armaments and SWAT teams, along with the militarization of even our local police forces, seem to be heading in the direction of an internal army.

I can understand agencies with high security-requirements, like the CIA, needing a well-trained police force providing 24-hour security. Or agencies that are enforcing federal laws (but why can't they all simply use the FBI or Federal Marshals for law enforcement?)

But why does a low-profile agency like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need its own private police force? Are terrorists targeting meteorologists now? NOAA's phones can't dial 911 to call the local police like the rest of us would do during an emergency? Or what about using private security? For low-profile agencies that would probably be a lot cheaper and would stop the trend of every agency being armed to the teeth.

Add the U.S. Postal Service to the list of federal agencies seeking to purchase what some Second Amendment activists say are alarmingly large quantities of ammunition.

Earlier this year, the USPS posted a notice on its website, under the heading "Assorted Small Arms Ammunition," that says: "The United States Postal Service intends to solicit proposals for assorted small arms ammunition. If your organization wishes to participate, you must pre-register. This message is only a notification of our intent to solicit proposals."

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said: "We're seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don't understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time."

Jake McGuigan, director of state affairs and government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said widely reported federal ammunition purchases have sparked conspiracy-type fears among gun owners, who worry that the federal government is trying to crack down on Second Amendment rights via the back door by limiting the ammo available to owners.

It's not just the USPS that is stocking up on ammo.

A little more than a year ago, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of ".357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point" bullets.

Before that, it was the Department of Agriculture requesting 320,000 rounds. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security raised eyebrows with its request for 450 million rounds — at about the same time the FBI separately sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, asked: why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?

"NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn't know why they're doing this," he said. "The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government."

Armed federal employees are often assigned to offices of investigative services, the offices of inspectors general, or other equally bureaucratic agencies.

For instance, regular Internal Revenue Service agents aren't equipped with on-the-job guns — but those affiliated with the agency's Criminal Investigations Division are.

The same goes for workers with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, with the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General, and with the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General.

The Energy Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commerce Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are a few of the federal entities that boast an armed division, tasked with investigating fraud and suspected criminal activities. As such, the agents get to carry guns.

"Most of these agencies do have their own police forces," said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Gun Owners' Action League.

That, perhaps more than federal ammunition purchases, is the larger issue, he suggested, and Van Cleave agreed.

"What's the need for that? Do we really need this? That was something our Founding Fathers did not like and we should all be concerned about," Van Cleave said, speaking of the expansion of police forces throughout all levels of government.

The Department of Homeland Security employs in its various law enforcement entities — from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service to Customs and Border Protection — more than 200,000 workers, an estimated 135,000 of whom are authorized to carry weapons. When the agency makes its ammo buys, it often does so over the course of several years.

"We realize that the House is still investigating the ammo purchases by the administration, but from what we've seen so far, most representatives don't seem alarmed," said Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America.

"For example, [Georgia Republican] Rep. Lynn Westmoreland said that given all the agencies that the Department of Homeland Security purchases for, "450 million rounds really is not that large of an order," Pratt said.

McGuigan acknowledged that there was a scarcity of ammo but attributed it more to a rise in purchases by individuals.

The Obama administration's stated desire to scale back gun rights drove more in the private sector to purchase firearms — which in turn fueled ammunition sales, McGuigan said.

"Over the last few years, there's been a tremendous increase in gun ownership, [with] many more females," McGuigan said. "I think a lot of people need to be aware of what's happening, and what the federal agencies are doing. I don't think, though, they need to be overly concerned that there's not going to be any ammo left."

But the notion of the Obama administration's using backdoor means to scale back gun ownership — a move that's hardly been kept secret — doesn't seem that outlandish to some.

"I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense," Gottlieb said. "The amount of ammunition they're buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they'll use — they'll never use it all."

Here we go again. The Party of Gun Control is making another gun-control push. Democratic leadership never learns, do they?

The irony is that these are members of CONGRESS asking the President to go around Congress and make his own gun ban. Why don't these Congressmen just put in their own bill and try to get it passed into law? Because they know that people don't want such a ban and Congress would never pass such a bill. So, these Democrats want to thwart the Will of the People.

Here are the Virginia Representatives who are pushing this Congressional End-Run:

Gerald E. Connolly
Bobby Scott
Jim Moran

Any attempt to do such a ban will start another huge run on semi-automatic rifles and ammunition.

WASHINGTON – Nearly 100 congressional Democrats are asking President Barack Obama to take executive action to close loopholes in a ban on the importation of military-style firearms.

In separate letters sent to the White House over the last week, a dozen Senate Democrats and 82 House Democrats urged the president to use his broad authority under the 1968 Gun Control Act to impose a stricter ban.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer of New York are among the Senate letter's signatories. Fifteen of New York's 27 House members signed the other letter, including Reps. Louise Slaughter of Fairport, Nita Lowey of Harrison and Eliot Engel of the Bronx.

The ban on importing military-style weapons began during the George H.W. Bush administration. Bush took action following the 1989 shooting deaths of five children and the wounding of 30 others at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., by gunman Patrick Purdy, who used an imported AK-47 rifle.

The ban continued under President Bill Clinton but lapsed under President George W. Bush, according to Engel, who initiated the House letter.

Engel said he has lobbied unsuccessfully for the stricter ban for the last decade and urged Obama to take action beginning shortly after the president took office in 2009.

Obama did issue an executive order last August denying requests to re-import surplus military firearms such as M-1s that had been shipped to allies such as South Korea. That order doesn't cover foreign-made firearms.

"These military-style firearms are not prohibited under the current import ban, even though they are functionally equivalent to prohibited rifles with a military origin,'' the Senate letter said.

The Senate letter also says a 1998 Treasury Department guidance issued during the Clinton administration "allows foreign-made firearms to be imported into the United States without military features, even if the firearms have the capacity to fire multiple time in quick succession without the need to reload and can easily have military features attached.''

Citing research by the Violence Policy Center, the lawmakers say imported military-style firearms were involved in 64 percent of the 2,528 firearms prosecutions in 2011 and 2012 in which the gun type was identified. That's up from 18 percent between 2008 and 2010.

The Violence Policy Center data covers the limited number of cases in which details of the weapons was publicly available.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has a comprehensive database that tracks the make of guns used to commit crimes, but Congress has barred the agency from releasing that data to the public. It can be shared only with law enforcement agencies.

ATF does not keep data on imports of military-style weapons. But it says imports of rifles, shotguns and handguns almost tripled, from 1.63 million in 2002 to 4.84 million in 2012.

Brazil, Austria, Germany, Turkey and Italy are the largest sources of imported guns.

The Violence Policy Center says imported assault-style weapons are widely marketed for sale in the U.S. and estimates 300,000 were imported in 2012.

A 2013 edition of "Shotgun News'' magazine contains an ad for Romanian AK-47s and AK variants along with a Russian-made Saiga AK modified in the U.S, a Hungarian AMD-65 semi-automatic and a Yugoslavian M76 sniper gun, the center noted.

Engel said he privately discussed the issue with Vice President Joe Biden more than a year ago when Biden was formulating the administration's response to the December 2012 mass shooting of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"His last words to me were that he was all for this and this would be a great thing to do,'' Engel said. "So if there's some reason that's holding up the administration, I'd like to know it, because no one has told me.''

Universities, such as UVA, are run by such hypocrites. Free thought is good as long as the School agrees with that thought. But when they don't, they try to squelch it, as in this article in a UVA newsletter.

Shooting down activism
The Idaho legislature should not ignore university communities' concerns regarding a bill allowing guns on campus
by Managing Board
March 04, 2014

On Thursday, more than 200 college faculty and students gathered at the state capitol in Boise, Idaho to protest a bill that would require state universities to allow firearms on their campuses. On Friday, a committee in the Idaho state legislature voted 11-3 to send the bill on to the House floor.

Proponents of the bill have argued that to prohibit guns on the campuses of public universities restricts Second Amendment rights. Some have also argued that armed students or faculty could more quickly stop a potential school shooting than the university's police force could.

But the bill faces strong opposition, with about 10 opposing protesters for every one supporter at the capitol on Thursday. Professors held signs that read "Not in my classes" and "Keep guns away from schools." In an interview on Boise State Public Radio, Boise State President Bob Kustra said he believes allowing guns on campuses will in fact make universities more dangerous, and likely will not help stop a potential school shooting.

The multiple arguments for or against the bill have been well hashed out. The New York Times recently ran an op-ed by Boise State Prof. Greg Hampikian, entitled "When May I Shoot a Student?" Rather than re-examining the arguments specifically surrounding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of guns at increasing safety, we focus on a different argument for voting down this bill: the popular sovereignty of the students and faculty at the universities.

Kustra said the majority of people who had reached out to him did not want guns on the campus. Leaders from all eight of Idaho's public colleges have raised objections to the bill. In his New York Times op-ed, Hampikian expresses dismay that the Boise City police chief, who opposes the bill, was not allowed to speak at the public hearing on it, while a spokesman from the National Rifle association was given a full 40 minutes to speak.

The bill previously passed the state Senate, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 4 to 1. Only three Republicans joined the seven Democrats in voting against the bill. The fact that the Senate vote and the small House committee vote were both along party lines, coupled with the loud protests that seem to have been ignored, indicates that the legislature aims to uphold a partisan agenda, rather than cater to the desires of the people the bill will affect.

In response to the argument that such a bill is not a matter of majority opinion but a necessary provision to uphold Second Amendment rights, we think about the purpose and the bounds of the Second Amendment. Firstly, Kustra said he thinks "the Second Amendment was designed to protect lives" and that this bill would not assist in that goal. We support this sentiment, given the potential for misuse of firearms and accidental injuries. Secondly, it is widely recognized that the Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to own a firearm, but that does not mean it guarantees the person a right to bring the firearm anywhere he pleases. Firearms are prohibited in many places — courthouses, hospitals, airports — for the sake of public safety.

It is clear that a majority of students and faculty feel that guns should not be permitted on their campuses. [PVC: So, 200 students protesting at the Idaho Capitol are the majority of the students? They must have super-tiny universities in Idaho.] If the Idaho lawmakers ignore those concerns, they are not performing their duty of representing their constituents' opinions. Of course, the minority opinion should not be ignored, but a discussion, and hopefully compromise, among the university communities is what should influence the decisions of the state legislature, rather than purely partisan motivations. [PVC: And we all know that UVA's Administration would never be partisan.]

At one time VA residents needed a PA non-resident CHP to legally carry in PA. Roughly 8 years ago that changed and now there is a written reciprocity agreement between VA and PA. Here are links showing this agreement:

Of course, there may be other reasons for someone to want a PA non-resident CHP. But for those VA residents who simply want to legally carry in PA, a VA CHP is all that is required now. The reciprocity agreement between VA and PA is a big time-and-money saver.

Last year saw the biggest legislative battle over gun rights this country has seen in almost 20 years. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was the last time Congress took up the banner of so-called "gun-control."

In the wake of two unimaginable tragedies, the Aurora theater shooting, and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the cries of "we have to do something" rang in the ears of politicians.

After the anti-gun left failed to pass gun control on the federal level, they looked for any avenue by which to restrict what they lacked the political will to ban. They turned their sights on mental health. This disingenuous ploy has duped many into supporting gun control, while claiming to be staunchly pro-gun.

Most of us look at what happened in Aurora and Newtown, and wonder how anyone could commit such a heinous act. Wrapping our minds around something so seemingly incomprehensible and indefensible leads us to only one conclusion; those who commit such horrible acts must be mentally ill.

Some of the perpetrators of such evil may have suffered from a mental illness that contributed to their actions, but they represent an infinitesimally small portion of the mentally ill in this country. The Center for Disease Control estimates that fully half of all Americans will suffer from a "mental illness" of some sort during their lifetimes[1]. The vast majority of these are minor mental illnesses, and most will recover fully.

Names of thousands of non-violent, law-abiding individuals are being forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS, a database from which it is virtually impossible to have a name removed.

Now, in addition to federal law being out of touch with the medical reality of recovery from mental illness, the institutional gun lobby is pushing legislation that will further stigmatize the mentally ill, despite there being little evidence of the mentally ill committing crimes with guns[2]. In fact, the mentally ill are less likely to commit gun crimes than the population at large.

Those pushing such legislation are quick to claim that they are only interested in disarming those that are a danger to themselves or others, but divining who is going to be a danger is not a simple process.

Resident psychiatrists, who have been training and practicing for years, were no better at determining who was going to be violent than the simple flip of a coin[3]. These are the people on whom we depend for determining who can defend themselves, and who can't.

On the basis of their recommendations, or the flip of a coin, people's rights are being taken from them, even if the individual is not confined to a mental institution[4], and in some states, even if they agree to voluntarily seek treatment.

The mentally ill in America are some of the most vulnerable among us. Advocating for laws that could strip them of their rights permanently because of a temporary condition gives them another incentive to not seek treatment, which can compound their condition.

While the anti-gun left push "mental health" as the remedy for gun violence, they are marginalizing an already stigmatized population that should be brought out of the shadows for treatment, not driven further underground.

The concept of mental health bills, regarding gun rights, violates the Second Amendment rights of thousands or millions of law-abiding Americans without due process.

**************************************************
11. MILLER: Huge majorities on East Coast support national gun registry
**************************************************

MILLER: Huge majorities on East Coast support national gun registry
New poll of voters in Virginia, New York and New Jersey
by Emily Miller -The Washington Times
March 4, 2014

A shocking poll released Tuesday shows overwhelming majorities of people in Virginia, New York and New Jersey support a national gun registry.

The survey released Tuesday was done jointly by Roanoke College in Virginia, Rutgers-Eagleton in New Jersey and Siena College in New York. It shows that 68 percent of New York voters and a whopping 74 percent of New Jersey voters are in favor of establishing a national gun registry.

Even in the southern state of Virginia — which has gone blue in recent years — 63 percent want the federal government to track all guns.

"Given the exceptionally high numbers of support for President Obama and Hillary Clinton in this poll, it isn't surprising that there would be high numbers of support for draconian gun control proposals," he told me.

The poll does seem skewed with too many liberals and Democrats. None of the colleges said they asked party affiliation of the respondents.

For example, Mr. Obama got favorable approval from 57 percent of New York residents, which is far all other surveys that show the president having the support of less than a majority.

Mrs. Clinton's approvals ranged from 65 percent in New York to 56 percent in Virginia.

The survey is also suspect since a CNN poll in the middle of the gun control debate on Capitol Hill last April showed only 44 percent of Americans supported a national firearms registry.

Mr. Arulanandam added that, "The five million NRA members an in sync with every reasonable law-abiding American who opposes gun registries and wants law enforcement resources used to ensure existing gun laws are enforced — and those who break these laws are arrested, prosecuted and punished."

In addition, the overwhelming support of voters for a registry stands in contrast to the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment primarily to prevent government tyranny. If Washington knows the details of every gun owned by an American citizen, then it opens the door to confiscation.

Voters need to get educated on the impact of a federal gun registration on their personal freedoms and our nation's future.

Moms Demand Action is simply out-of-sync with American values. Being prejudiced against another segment of the population (gun owners) is simply not acceptable and they don't get it. They also seem to revel in "empty" wins - such as where Facebook will remind anybody selling guns to follow the law. ;-)

A Washington Post-ABC News poll published yesterday regarding gay rights includes a revelation that may challenge anti-gun groups to explain their politically correct prejudice against gun owners that Moms Demand Action (MDA) practiced yesterday in Massachusetts and recently in Seattle.

According to the WaPo-ABC poll, a whopping 81 percent of respondents said businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians and 65 percent said this should be the case even if the business owner has a religious objection.

Contrast that with yesterday's reported attempt by an MDA group in Framingham, Mass., to force Staples to refuse business to legally-armed citizens. They came with a petition bearing a reported 12,000 signatures, but according to the Framingham Patch, they were "asked to leave the property." Another MDA chapter in Seattle wants the public library to prohibit armed citizens from using library facilities.

=============================

Update: Facebook today announced "a series of new educational and enforcement efforts for people discussing the private sale of regulated items" and the MDA is taking credit for this change:

Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18.

We will require Pages that are primarily used by people to promote the private sale of commonly regulated goods or services to include language that clearly reminds people of the importance of understanding and complying with relevant laws and regulations, and limit access to people over the age of 18 or older if required by applicable law.

We will provide special in-app education on Instagram for those who search for sales or promotions of firearms.

In response, the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation both issued statements:

"The NRA enjoys 150 times more support on Facebook than Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That's why Bloomberg and the gun control groups he funds tried to pressure Facebook into shutting down discussion of Second Amendment issues on its social media platforms. Bloomberg failed. NRA members and our supporters will continue to have a platform to exercise their First Amendment rights in support of their Second Amendment freedoms." – Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

"Facebook today acted to provide clarification to its policies on postings concerning firearms and agreed to provide educational messaging on its platform. We are in agreement that all applicable laws should be observed in the private transfer of firearms. We would have welcomed the opportunity to provide our industry's perspective, however, and regret that we were not consulted. Facebook's clarification will not affect the lawful commerce in firearm and ammunition products for NSSF members and their customers."—NSSF

==============================

Gun owners appear to be the only group against whom it is still fashionable to practice social prejudice. Several days ago in Pennsylvania, State Rep. Ronald G. Waters proposed a "sensible" gun law that would include "detailed, regular mental health evaluations for gun owners and potential gun buyers and similar evaluations for family members who share residency…" National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea discusses that proposal here.

In state after state where concealed carry reform laws have been adopted, anti-gun groups have pleaded with, cajoled or bullied businesses to refuse service to legally-armed citizens. As this column reported several times last year, former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, in cooperation with Washington CeaseFire, recruited businesses in the Jet City to become so-called "gun-free zones." Substitute the word "gay" for "gun" and see how far that would go before angry demonstrators appeared outside the door.

Far left gun prohibitionists invariably fail to see the hypocrisy in their actions, so it might be educational for them to chat up this double standard with members of the Pink Pistols, a small but active group of gay firearms owners. There are chapters in Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma and Portland.

At the end of the day, one may be forced to consider whether there is really any difference between homophobia and hoplophobia.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Times and Associated Press this morning are reporting that Unilever, the parent company of Dove, the popular bath soap, is pulling its billboard advertisement in New Jersey that referred to the Garden State as "the armpit of America." Apparently, New Jersey residents objected.

The advertisement was rather tongue-in-cheek, and according to the story, it read, "Dear New Jersey, When people call you 'The Armpit of America,' take it as a compliment. Sincerely, Dove."

New Jersey is one of a handful of states that has adopted such draconian gun laws that some people have been compelled to file federal lawsuits, including Drake v. Jerejian, which is seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state has a history of prosecuting, and to some extent, persecuting, gun owners and the Drake case challenges the state's arbitrary and prohibitive concealed carry permitting scheme. No amount of soap can wash away that reputation.

**************************************************
13. How the gun lobby became a threat to public safety
**************************************************

Way too much to say about this article up front. I disagree with almost everything. I've embedded my comments below.

How the Gun Lobby Became a Threat to Public Safety
by Joshua Holland
March 4, 2014

Just a generation ago, the NRA was a nonpartisan and relatively non-ideological organization that advocated for responsible and safe gun ownership in addition to defending gun rights.

But in its 20 years under the leadership of chief executive Wayne LaPierre the organization has become another cog in the broader conservative advocacy machine.

At the same time, with gun ownership declining, the organization has come to rely less on its members' dues and more on firearm manufacturers, which now account for over half of the NRA's revenues according to Walter Hickey at Business Insider. [PVC: It is natural that gun manufacturers would contribute to the NRA and just as natural for the NRA to use the manufacturer's money along with the money from 5 million or so dues paying members.]

The gun lobby also lost a key element of what had long been its defining mission: Guns remain a hot-button topic for political debate, but in the courts the issue has largely been settled. Gun rights won.

In 2010, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing debate about whether the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms or only applied to, as the Constitution reads, "a well-regulated militia." The court ruled that the right to own firearms, while not without limits, is as integral as the right to free speech or the free exercise of religion. Since then, a number of municipal bans on firearm ownership have been overturned — most recently when a federal court struck down a California law that allowed counties to restrict the concealed carry of guns. [PVC: Oh, Mr. Holland? You forgot something - gun owners want to carry outside of their homes and we don't yet have a ruling by the Supreme Court on that issue. We are far, far from being done or being where we want to be.]

But the gun makers' lobby remains strong and well-financed, and it has an institutional imperative to keep lobbying. It is now in the business of selling guns by promoting the idea that we can never have too many [PVC: Yes!], nor should there be any public places where firearms aren't welcome [PVC: Yes!] — and by spinning conspiracy theories about various imagined plots to disarm law-abiding Americans. [PVC: Last I checked, disarmament was actually in progress in Congress with mental health laws, in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and other places.]

Today, the NRA and its political allies promote such policies as allowing concealed weapons in bars, allowing the blind to carry firearms ("Blind gun user Michael Barber said: 'When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary'"), making it a felony for doctors to discuss gun safety with their patients (never mind the First Amendment) and barring private firms from telling their employees to keep their guns at home. [PVC: Yes - all good and logical things! Where are we having a problem with those laws, Mr. Holland?]

Pro-gun lawmakers have gotten the message. Last month, five Republican legislators in Washington State introduced a bill that would exempt all firearms and ammunition from the state's sales tax. Now in theory at least, one reason for tax breaks is to encourage some social good. For example, 20 years of tax credits have played a role in the exponential increase of wind energy production in the US. Yet here was a proposed tax break that would only encourage the sale of more guns in a country that's already bristling with them. [PVC: Uh, the U.S. is bristling with energy, too.]

These laws are predicated on the belief that more guns make a society safer. One of the cosponsors of the Washington State bill, Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) told a local conservative talk radio host, "It's beyond a shadow of a doubt: More firearms in a society cuts crime in that society." (In fact, according to the UN, the US is believed to lead the world in private gun ownership and has the highest total crime rate among wealthy countries.) [PVC: And the UN is first place I would go to get an unbiased opinion on citizens being armed based on their recent efforts at global gun control.]

Kentucky lawmakers proposed a similar measure back in December, and in Kansas, the belief that more guns mean more safety forms the basis of a law that only permits local officials to bar firearms from public buildings if they install costly metal detectors or hire security guards. In South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley is backing a law that would allow people to carry concealed guns without a permit or any safety training. [PVC: Again, all sensible measures that Mr. Holland will not be able to point to any problems caused by them.]

The problem is that this faith in guns for security, like global warming denialism, flies in the face of a mountain of serious, peer-reviewed research. [PVC: Uh, oh. Here comes the "junk" science sponsored by Bloomberg, et al.]

Last month, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a study conducted by epidemiologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) finding that access to a firearm makes an individual almost twice as likely to become the victim of a homicide and three times more likely to commit suicide. [PVC: Guns are not a disease to be studied by epidemiologists. They are a vaccine against the disease of crime. No doubt these epidemiologists are mixing gang-bangers with guns and law-abiding citizens with guns. These groups have nothing in common when it comes to guns or their use.]

Previous studies had found that countries with higher rates of gun ownership also have higher rates of gun deaths and that states with more guns have higher homicide rates. But gun advocates dismissed those studies because they didn't account for illegal gun sales. (The National Rifle Association's side of the scholarly debate rests largely on the discredited and allegedly fraudulent work of economist John Lott.) [PVC: I can't believe he said that about Prof. Lott, who has the conviction to make his data available to anyone who wants to see it. The anti-gun researchers don't do that and for good reason.]

The UCSF study took a different approach, starting with a dead body and working backwards to see whether that person owned or had access to a firearm, legal or illegal. The study was a meta-analysis combining data from 15 previous, peer-reviewed papers. [PVC: Perhaps "cherry picking" is the lay term for this?]

It also found a significant gender gap in terms of homicide: Men with access to a gun were 29 percent more likely to be a victim of homicide, while women with a gun close at hand were almost three times more likely to be murdered. The report cited previous studies that found that most female murder victims knew their assailant, and three-quarters of women killed with a gun died in their own homes. Researchers concluded that the presence of guns may make impulsive killings during domestic disputes more common. [PVC: You need to watch Mr. Holland's wording very carefully. "the presence of guns MAY make impulsive killings during domestic disputes more common" (so they may also not add to impulse killings), "women with a gun CLOSE AT HAND" (whatever that means - in a gun safe? Out in the car? On their person?), and "men with ACCESS to a gun" (whatever that means, too). Sure sounds like "weasel wording" to me.]

Another soon-to-be-published study may provide the most compelling evidence to date that looser gun laws lead to more bloodshed. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health were able to conduct a natural experiment in Missouri after the state repealed a law requiring handgun purchasers to get a license and pass a background check in 2007. According to the study's authors, repealing the law "contributed to a sixteen percent increase in Missouri's murder rate." [PVC: This is why Mr. Holland hates Prof. Lott so much. Lott shot that research into pieces in a recent article. After all, it was "the best junk science that Bloomberg's money could buy."]

That translated into 55 to 63 more murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012, despite the fact that during the same period, "none of the states bordering Missouri experienced significant increases in murder rates and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by over five percent." The increase in murders began in the first full year after the state's licensing requirement was repealed, and the researchers "controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime."

The conclusions presented in these studies, along with previous research, fly in the face of the persistent claim that more guns make a society safer. But this is as much a story of money influencing politics as anything else. With supporters like Springfield Armory, Inc, Pierce Bullet, Seal Target Systems, Beretta USA Corporation, Sturm Rugar & Co and Smith & Wesson, public safety simply isn't a high priority for the gun lobby. [PVC: And truth isn't a high priority for the anti-gun lobby and their junk science supporters, like Mr. Holland.]

**************************************************
14. The PR war between the anti-gun groups
**************************************************

Moms Demand Illegal Mayors, or whatever the two merged groups are called these days, are declaring total victory in the Facebook/Instagram policy statement that any reported post featuring an offer to sell any regulated product privately will generate a reminder to sellers that they shouldn't violate the law.

But the Brady Campaign swiftly sent out a letter to their supporters highlighting that the anti-gun groups didn't get anything they demanded at all, and this is not in any way a victory. The thing is, the Brady Campaign is right on this, at least coming from a gun banner's perspective.

Remember that what the Moms/Illegal Mayors were demanding was a total ban on any kind of speech/photo that might result in a gun sale.

The result is a clear invitation by Facebook and Instagram to sell & promote firearms using their platforms, just with reminders that they ask their users to follow the law. They also outline very specific language that they will look for and interpret as signals that show sellers may be trying to avoid the law so that sellers have a clear picture of what kinds of promotions Facebook will agree to host and those which it won't.

The Brady Campaign is clearly pretty pissed off that Facebook has actually spelled out that gun sales, even private transfers that may not require a background check, are okay by Facebook and that their supposed "allies" in this movement are calling the continued sale of firearms, now with guidance from corporate, a victory.

The problem is that Facebook and Twitter unite us as a group that can wield influence on our peers and broadcast things globally. That's the first thing that dictators try to stop in any situation (see Venezuela). Therefore, abandoning Facebook will not help our cause. Censorship is what this is called and more of it could be coming…. Soon, any anti-gooberment statement will be censored on FB. (I hope not!)

Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, according to an article by VentureBeat.

The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.

Sources close to the conversations reportedly claim, "Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments."

VentureBeat touts an extensive investigation which they claim revealed adults and children were making arrangements to buy, sell, and trade guns through the many Facebook fan pages devoted to guns and the people who use them, sometimes in violation of federal and state gun laws.

Of course, Venturebeat and these anti-gun organizations apparently have not bothered to investigate how drug dealers are using the social media site to sell drugs… or how many sexual predators are using the site to lure and sexually assault children and teens….

Last October, a 15 year-old high school student in Kentucky bought a 9mm handgun from a man he met through a Facebook fan page. The teen was arrested when he was caught with the loaded pistol on the campus of Greenup County Highschool. The seller drove from Ohio to Kentucky to make the sale and was also arrested. The suspect told sheriff's investigators he sold other guns to people he met on the Facebook fan pages.

The two advocacy groups recently joined forces to pressure what they say is their stated objective of seeing "Facebook get out of the gun business." Mayors Against Illegal Guns was co-founder by former NYC three-term mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg along with Boston's then-mayor Thomas Menino in 2006. Mayors of more than 1,100 U.S. cities belong to the organization.

A Moms Demand Action petition on Change.org to prohibit gun sales on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram has over 94,000 signatures. Comedian Sarah Silverman recently tweeted about the campaign, which is getting massive exposure through U.S. media outlets.

A spokeswoman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told VentureBeat last week, "Anybody can go to Facebook and Instagram and buy a gun online. We're asking them to review their policies."

Facebook of course is not an e-commerce site and doesn't sell anything. Last week, a Facebook spokesperson told VentureBeat, "You can't buy things on Instagram and Facebook, nor can you promote the sale or use of weapons in advertising. We encourage people who come across any illegal activity to report it to us."

Users are still getting around the company's stated user policies.

Google+, with about 450 millions users, also prohibits the sale of guns and many other items through the site.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Under pressure from gun control advocates, Facebook agreed Wednesday to delete posts from users seeking to buy or sell weapons illegally or without a background check.

A similar policy will be applied to Instagram, the company's photo-sharing network, Facebook said. The measures will be put into effect over the next few weeks at the world's largest social network, with 1.3 billion active users.

"We will remove reported posts that explicitly indicate a specific attempt to evade or help others evade the law," the company said in a statement.

The move reflects growing alarm that the Internet is being used to sell banned weapons, evade restrictions on interstate sales, and put guns in the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill or others barred under federal law from obtaining firearms. Gun control advocates say Facebook has become a significant marketplace, with thousands of firearms-related posts.

Facebook said that instead of patrolling its network for violators, it will rely on reports from users and police.

The new policy was worked out in an agreement with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has been pressing the company along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Moms Demand Action. Moms Demand Action collected more than 230,000 signatures on petitions calling on Facebook to act.

"Responsible social media sites know that it is in no one's interest for their sites to become the 21st-century black market in dangerous and illegal goods that place our families and communities at risk," Schneiderman said.

Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's legislative policy arm, portrayed the new policy as a victory for the NRA, saying Bloomberg and his allies tried - and failed - to shut down discussion of gun rights on Facebook.

"NRA members and our supporters will continue to have a platform to exercise their First Amendment rights in support of their Second Amendment freedoms," Cox said.

But Tom King, president of the NRA's New York affiliate, warned that the policy could be used to silence gun organizations on Facebook.

"This is something that could greatly get out of control very quickly," King said.

In crafting the new policy, Facebook had to confront a patchwork of gun laws around the country. New York, for example, has some of the nation's toughest gun laws. It prohibits the sale of weapons such the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, and it is one of 16 states that require background checks on buyers making private firearm purchases.

Under the new policy, Facebook would allow a user to list an AR-15 as long as it wasn't offered for sale in states where the weapon is illegal.

Also, Facebook will remove any posts in which a gun seller offers to skip a background check, even if such checks aren't required in the seller's state. And it will delete offers to sell guns across state lines without the involvement of a licensed firearms dealer, something required under federal law.

"This is one of many areas where we face a difficult challenge balancing individuals' desire to express themselves on our services and recognizing that this speech may have consequences elsewhere," Facebook said.

The company already has systems in place to remove advertising that is false and deceptive, and it prohibits ads for illegal drugs, tobacco and prescription drugs.

"They are talking about a community-based reporting system. Do what these other companies did and shut it down. Shut down the private sales of guns," he said.

There's no way to know how many guns are sold via Facebook, because the transactions are actually completed offline, said John Feinblatt, chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. But such sales have occurred.

In Kentucky, for example, federal authorities in February charged an Ohio man with illegally selling a 9 mm pistol to a Kentucky teenager in a transaction arranged through Facebook.

Feinblatt said that there are "virtual gun shows" online. His group issued a report in December showing 66,000 active ads on a popular gun sales website called Armslist.

In a March 3 Investor's Business Daily editorial, John R. Lott, Jr. highlights the failures of the Brady Law over its 20 year existence, specifically pointing out that the background checks associated with it do not reduce crime.

This is crucial information for gun owners and would-be gun owners who are constantly bombarded with the idea that background checks are good and need to be expanded to cover all sales now.

According to Lott, of the 76,142 background checks denials in 2010, many were cleared up after the "initial" denial, 44 were prosecuted, and "only 13 [people] were convicted of illegally trying to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so." And the 13 who were convicted were people "with relatively trivial records from years earlier that didn't realize their offense was covered" by a background check when they went to buy a gun: "hardly what one would call dangerous criminals."

Lott then adds the clincher: "There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime." He points to a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel that specifically concluded Brady Law background checks "did not reduce violent crime, not even a single category of violent crime."

Moms Kicked Off Staples Property But Deliver 12,000 Signatures to Retailer's Security
Members of the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America deliver a petition with more than 12,000 signatures to Staples this morning asking for guns to be prohibited in their stores.
by Susan Petroni (Editor)
March 04, 2014

Members of the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America tried deliver a petition with more than 12,000 signatures at Staples headquarters in Framingham on Tuesday morning to Staples' CEO but were asked to leave the property.

The organization did deliver the signatures to Staples security.

The signatures ask the retailer, headquartered in Framingham, to stop allowing guns in their stores, nationwide.

"The presence of firearms creates an inherent and unnecessary risk for Staples shoppers," said Ann Krantz of Wenham and the communications lead for Moms Demand Action Massachusetts.

Krantz, told Patch, while Staples does not sell guns it does allow customers to carry them in their stores nationwide.

Massachusetts shoppers do not see customers carrying guns, except for law enforcement, due to state laws, said Krantz.

A small group of women held signs in Framingham this morning, but were asked to move off Staples property.

Last August, a female customer inside a North Carolina Staples "negligently fired her gun," said Krantz.

"It is sheer luck that no one other than the gun owner was injured. But what about next time? It's time for Staples to put the safety of its customers first and keep guns out of its stores," said Krantz.

**************************************************
19. Disarmed: How cities are losing the power to regulate guns
**************************************************

Lost on Mr. Valentine is that by not allowing local gun control laws, lives are saved.

Disarmed: How Cities Are Losing the Power to Regulate Guns
A growing number of states bar municipalities—often the sites of the worst gun violence—from passing their own firearm laws, laying bare an urban-rural divide.
by Matt Valentine
March 6, 2014

It was after midnight on February 15. Valentine's Day had ended, but there were still roses in the gift shop when two men hobbled into Via Christi Hospital St. Joseph in Wichita, Kansas, each with a bullet wound in the thigh. One of them explained to police that he had a concealed-carry handgun license, and that he'd been drinking at the Shot Time II bar when he'd accidentally fired a bullet through his own leg and into the leg of the man sitting next to him.

Kansas law used to prohibit CCH license holders from bringing their guns into bars, but then in 2007 the state legislature quietly changed the rules, resulting in confusion for both patrons and proprietors. Now, unless the bar conspicuously posts a "no guns" sign, licensed carriers may bring their concealed weapons inside. A longstanding Sedgwick County law bans guns, concealed or not, from all bars, but that ordinance no longer means anything; the state has stripped municipalities of their authority to regulate most aspects of gun ownership and use. This type of legislation is called preemption, and it influences nearly every community's relationship with guns—not just in Kansas but throughout the U.S.

Such laws reflect a divide not only between those who favor expanded gun rights and those who oppose them, but also a geographical divide between policymakers. Metropolitan communities (where most gun crimes occur) tend to have a different perspective about gun rights and gun violence than their more rural surrounds. Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the specific crime problems in communities often lead to locally tailored solutions—which can't be implemented if they've been preempted by state law.

"It used to be that local governments all across the country could regulate what was best for their community when it came to firearms," Cutilletta explained. "And then the NRA went on this campaign to convince states, one by one, to restrict that authority. And they were very successful. Over the years—a couple of decades—almost every state has preempted local regulation of firearms. What the states are doing now is introducing laws that make preemption more broad."

When Illinois passed a law last year that created a concealed-handgun permitting process, the legislation included a preemption clause to prohibit cities like Chicago from passing their own ordinances restricting concealed carry. Now, Sheriff Tom Dart of Cook County (which includes the Windy City) is concerned that hundreds of people with criminal records have been cleared for concealed carry by the state, and there's little he can do to stop ex-convicts from legally carrying concealed weapons in his jurisdiction. [PVC: What a stupid thing to say. Felons can't have guns and can't get a permit.] Dart even found that 12 of Illinois's certified concealed-carry instructors have criminal backgrounds. [PVC: Either the police aren't doing their job screening the instructors, or "criminal background" is being used in a deceptive manner to refer to misdemeanor convictions or traffic violations.]

Cook County isn't the only urban community hamstrung by preemption. In an effort to reduce one of the highest homicide rates in the U.S., community leaders in St. Louis have pursued countless crime-reduction initiatives—youth outreach, employment programs, and mental-health services—everything but gun reform, which is beyond their purview. Through a series of preemption measures beginning in 1984, the Missouri legislature has systematically stripped city and county governments of the authority to regulate guns.

Last month, the Missouri senate approved a bill that would remove the last bit of local authority to regulate firearms—a municipality's prerogative to decide where and how gun owners can openly carry their weapons in public. The bill would also lower the minimum age to get a concealed-carry permit from 21 to 19, allow designated teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools, and nullify federal gun laws. Anyone attempting to enforce a federal gun law that has been "declared invalid" by Missouri could be jailed for up to one year. When the bill moved through committee, the only dissenting vote came from Senator Jamilah Nasheed, who represents St. Louis.

If SB 613 becomes law, Missouri would join a growing list of states that have passed nullification legislation, none of which is likely to survive scrutiny in the courts. Most of these bills are modeled on a 2009 Montana law, which was invalidated last year by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The bill is unconstitutional," said Rebecca Morgan of the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "But even if it's found to be unconstitutional, Missouri is a state where every bill is severable. That means that, even if a court finds part of it unconstitutional, the rest remains. And there are so many things in this bill that we find reckless."

Former Ohio Governor Bob Taft saw firsthand how the debate about gun policy pits rural communities against bigger cities. "There's very strong support for gun rights in Ohio. Unfortunately, there's also a certain amount of crime, particularly in the large urban centers," Taft said. "We have over 900 municipalities in Ohio, and often conditions and circumstances differ from one to another, so there's a rationale for local governments to craft their own legislation. So that's an argument for providing some flexibility to the local governments with regards to gun laws."

Taft vetoed Ohio's 2006 preemption bill, but senate leaders in his own Republican Party overrode the veto—the first time an Ohio governor's veto had been overridden in nearly three decades. Then, when Cleveland sued the state in an (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to evade preemption, the National Rifle Association stepped in, joining the suit as defendant-intervener. The gun lobby warned of dire consequences if Cleveland won the lawsuit and regained the authority it had enjoyed for more than a century: "Gun owners living in Ohio … could lose their ability to legally protect themselves and their families."

The NRA frames its support of preemption as an effort to simplify "a complex patchwork of restrictions that change from one local jurisdiction to the next." There are just too many different ordinances, they say, which could be confusing or inconvenient to gun owners.

"I can travel 30 minutes from my home and travel through four jurisdictions," explained Kansas State Rifle Association President Patricia Stoneking, who testified in support of a new preemption bill that would eliminate what little local authority remained after Kansas passed a preemption law in 2007. "How am I to know what the law of all those jurisdictions say? What their individual ordinances are? Uniformity in all firearms laws is the most prudent action to take."

But does that ideal—uniformity in all firearms laws—apply across state borders? Should all U.S. states conform to one set of federal firearms laws?

Of course not. "The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms—period," Stoneking said.

Perhaps the preemption debate isn't about resolving jurisdictional disputes or sorting out the finer points of federalism after all—it's mostly about expanding gun rights and removing as many restrictions as possible. "There are lots of areas where home rule certainly applies," Stoneking said. "But this is not one of them. Not when it comes to an unalienable, natural, God-given right for people to protect themselves."

'.00672 Percent': Why Concealed Carry Permit Holders Will Want to Hear About Such a Small Number From a Former Navy SEAL
by Jonathon M. Seidl
March 3, 2014

Editor's Note: This video and story have been updated to note a calculation correction.

-

0.00672 percent.

It may seem small, but according to former Navy SEAL Dom Raso, who's also an NRA commentator, that number makes a big difference for concealed carry permit holders, especially in Florida.

"Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits," Raso says in his latest opinion piece for the NRA News network. "Of those, only 168 people have committed firearms crimes. That's .00672 percent of the total amount issued."*

Raso's point is part of a larger message to businesses: if you make your establishment a "gun free" zone, you're actually endangering yourself and your customers, as well as making yourself a target. Permit holders, he says, "are the last people you should be trying to keep out of your business."

**************************************************
21. Right to carry winning out in America
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

The map changes color when states enacted a change in may issue, to shall issue law.

Right to Carry Winning Out in America
by Elwood Shelton
February 27, 2014

It can be easy to get down as a gun owner.

There is no shortage of outlets decrying the Second Amendment and those who hold civil rights dear. And in a couple corners of the map, some distasteful state-level legislation has been passed. But these should not be enough to bring the Eyeore out in firearms enthusiasts.

In fact, overall, gun owners should be heartened with recent times. On a number of fronts gun owers are winning, legally and culturally. The above GIF documents one such battle gun owners have been wildly victorious.

What it documents is the steady march of the right to carry — literally the "right to bear arms" — in America. As recently as 25 years ago, concealed and open carry were civil rights only a few citizens could fully exercise. But now it is a liberty that has and is being affirmed and reaffirmed coast to coast.

Dave Kopel perhaps detailed it best in a recent post at the Volk Conspiracy. The law professor at the University of Denver and Second Amendment advocate points out that in 1986 only 10 percent of Americans lived in states where "there were objective and fair procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry permits." That trend has been completely reversed, now with 2/3rds of Americans living in "Shall Issue" states.

And, as Kopel reported in another post, the right to carry continues to move forward:

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago [February 13, 2014], affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have "good cause," which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O'Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the "good cause" provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Subjective and arbitrary statutes that stand in the way of bearing arms are quickly and rightfully going the way of poll taxes and literacy tests. But it's not just in the realm of law gun ownership and carry rights have enjoyed success. There has been a shift on a societal level, as well.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig advocates an armed citizenry as a crime deterrent for his city — a metropolis that is among the nation's most dangerous. Gunownership is at its highest level in more than 20 years and has seen across-the-board increases in every demographic. And even those who were dubious about what full-realized Second Amendment rights would mean to the country have changed their tunes.

Columnist Michael Barone admits, he believed liberalized carry laws would lead to blood in the streets when they began being passed in 1987. But far from shootouts erupting from every minor traffic altercation — a favorite scenario conjectured by those who opposed carry laws — something quite different occurred.

In a recent column, Barone points out citizens fully exercising their Second Amendment rights have not elicited blood lust. In fact, expanded ownership and recognition of civil rights have correlated with of a precipitous drop in the nation's violent crime rate. He believes a couple things can be gleaned from this:

One lesson, I think, is that responsible citizens tend to behave like responsible citizens, even if — or perhaps especially if — they're armed. Another lesson is that the national political dialogue can be totally irrelevant to what really happens in American life.

Certainly, there are worrisome fights for the Second Amendment rights (such as this and this). But there are also skirmishes in the fight of which gun owners should be pleased. We have made important and lasting changes to our country with carry rights and will continue to do so on other fronts.

**************************************************
22. [OH] 10 year old suspended for making fingers into shape of gun [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:

--

Probably safer to just to flip someone off. It's protected speak according to the courts. Maybe a lawyer could use the same argument: fingers in the shape of a gun are free speech. [PVC: You know, I like that idea!]

10-year-old suspended for making fingers into shape of gun
by Mayra Cuevas, CNN
March 4, 2014

(CNN) -- Ten-year-old Nathan Entingh doesn't understand why he got suspended from school for three days.

According to his father, Paul Entingh, one moment the boy was "goofing off" with his friends in fifth-grade science class, and the next the teacher was taking him out of the classroom, invoking Ohio's zero-tolerance policy.

The offense? Nathan was "making his fingers look like a gun, having the thumb up and the pointed finger sticking out," said Entingh, describing the February 26 incident.

"He was pointing it at a friend's head and he said 'boom.' The kid didn't see it. No other kids saw it. But the teacher saw it," he said. "It wasn't threatening. It wasn't hostile. It was a 10-year-old kid playing."

The next morning Paul Entingh escorted his son Nathan to the principal's office, where they met with Devonshire Alternative Elementary School Principal Patricia Price.

"She said if it happened again the suspension would be longer, if not permanent," said Entingh, who also received a letter explaining the reason for Nathan's suspension as a "level 2 look alike firearm."

The letter, which Entingh shared with CNN, read, "Nathan put his fingers up to another student's head, simulating a gun, and said, 'BOOM,' "

Price "has been warning the students for some weeks," said Warner. "We've had a problem at this school. The boys have gone around fake shooting and making paper guns at class. It's inappropriate. She has sent notes to parents for the past three weeks alerting them of the problem."

Entingh said he never received a notice, but was aware of school authorities telling students, including Nathan, that any gun-related behavior would have serious consequences.

"I don't know if it's to the point it happened so much they needed to punish somebody to set an example. I don't know, it blows my mind," said Entingh.

Warner acknowledged there was likely no ill-intention in Nathan's actions. "I know he (Nathan) felt it was funny and in jest, but the teacher felt it was inappropriate given the warnings that were given."

Warner said Nathan wasn't singled out as an example, but that his was the first incident after Price gave "her final notice last week."

Common sense?

Ohio's "zero-tolerance" rules in public schools came under attack in January when state Sen. Charleta Tavares introduced bill SB 167 to reverse or reform the original 1998 law introduced as part of SB 55. The 1998 bill mandated schools "adopt a policy of zero tolerance for violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior, including excessive truancy."

SB 55 also called for schools to "establish strategies to address such behavior that range from prevention to intervention," but Tavares believes schools have opted for punishment strategies instead.

"We have moved away from common sense, ensuring that the punishment fits the infraction," said Tavares. "We should maintain the highest form of punishment which is expulsion or suspension to those cases that cause the most harm."

Ohio Department of Education statistics show Nathan isn't alone.

According to state disciplinary figures for the 2012-2013 school year, a total of 419 statewide students, from various grade levels, were suspended because of an incident in the category of "firearm look-a-likes," and an additional 38 students were expelled.

In the Columbus City Schools district, where Nathan goes to school, 12 students were expelled because of incidents in the "firearm look-a-likes" category, while 69 students were suspended. Contrast that with categories such as harassment and intimidation, in which zero students were expelled, though 1527 were suspended districtwide.

Tavares has been trying to build consensus for her bill arguing that the current law is outdated because it doesn't take into consideration other factors, such as behavior and mental health.

"The bigger issue is that we need more behavior health and counseling at school so we can look at the root cause of why this child is acting out and being disruptive," said Tavares.

Entingh agrees and said he is planning to reach out to Tavares. He has struggled to help Nathan make sense of what happened.

"How much of a threat can it really be for a 10-year-old to hold up his fingers?" said a frustrated Entingh. "I would like for somebody to explain this to me because apparently I don't get it. This is way over the boundary. A teacher could have talked to him and sat him down, given him detention, but a three days suspension?"

Entingh is the father of five children, including Nathan, and he says none of them have ever gotten in trouble at school. Until now.

When asked what has Nathan learned from this incident, Entingh paused, then scoffed: "He's learned never to make his fingers like a gun a school again. I don't know if you consider that a life lesson."

**************************************************
23. [CT] An open letter to Lt. Vance of the CT state police [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Member Rick Evans emailed me this:

--

Well worth watching, IMHO. His is not an isolated sentiment. Many 'common' folk are starting to take serious notice of the situation in CT. Will this be what finally stirs the sleeping giant of latent patriotism?

**************************************************
24. [ID] Boise State Professor: 'When may I shoot a student?'
**************************************************

Bill Albritton emailed me this:

--

He fails to understand that an irate student will ignore any law and bring a gun to class. The law just evens the playing field and gives a 'good guy student' the ability to protect both himself and the professor's sorry rear end.

BOISE STATE PROFESSOR: 'WHEN MAY I SHOOT A STUDENT?'
by AWR HAWKINS
March 2, 2014

In a February 27th op-ed Boise State University professor Greg Hampikian asked, "When may I shoot a student?"

Hampikian was trying to show his disapproval of a campus carry law gaining momentum in Idaho.

According to Boise's KTVB.com, Hampikian believes the passage of campus carry will mean "disgruntled" students will pull guns from their backpacks instead of pencils.

Wrote Hampikian:
I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that they will be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement. [PVC: Sure! Just teach your class. Don't threaten to take a student's life and you'll be fine.]

Apparently Hampikian did not realize the only students who will be able to legally pack "heat" on Idaho campuses are those vetted through an extensive concealed carry permit background check process.

It appears he also failed to consider the myriad examples that prove laws against "packing heat" are ignored by criminals intent on attacking classrooms full of defenseless victims.

Member Chuck Reinhold emailed me to share his thoughts on VA-ALERT Item 15 from March 4, 2014:

--

Sir,

With regard to #15 in this VCDL update:

" Stanford law prof: Second Amendment is about restricting gun rights
by Robby Soave
January 30, 2014

A Stanford University law professor took the view that the Second Amendment permits strong gun control, telling the crowd that "restriction has to be at the core" of the right to carry a gun.

Donohue explained that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in historical context. The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today's weapons would become, he said."

--

Following Donohue's reasoning (and following his opinion that the Constitution "MUST be interpreted in historical context"), one could argue that the 1st Amendment is subject to the same reasoning in that University Professors, Actors/Actresses, media personalities, and even politicians should have their freedom of speech controlled because the Founding Fathers had no idea how powerful and destructive today's television, radio, and the internet would become. Since those groups of the population have an unfair advantage to spread their message to the public, their 1st Amendment rights should be subject to "speech control".

Donohue and his fellow gun-controllers should be taken to task for such horrible and dangerous logic. The Bill of Rights transcend technology as their protection is based on the natural rights of mankind independent of technology. [PVC: Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say what Donohue said was logical. ;-)]

Gun-loving liberals find solace in club
by Josh Richman
February 16, 2014

When Northern California liberals are said to be "up in arms," it usually means they're marching down San Francisco's Market Street or rallying at Berkeley's Sproul Plaza -- not toting guns and actively defending their right to do so.

But Marlene Hoeber, president of the Northern California chapter of the Liberal Gun Club, wants the world to know that lefty politics and a love for guns and gun rights aren't mutually exclusive.

"If the conversation about gun policy in the United States is limited to what the National Rifle Association has to say, the conversation is over because not enough people want to listen to that," said Hoeber, 43, of Oakland. "Hell, I'm a gun person and I don't want to listen to that."

Founded six months ago while California was grappling with a heap of gun-control bills introduced after the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Conn., the Northern California chapter has a few dozen members from San Luis Obispo up to the Oregon border.

They hold monthly meetings and sometimes go shooting together. The national club, formed in 2009, has about 1,000 members from coast to coast but is concentrated mostly in California and Texas, while many more take part in the club's online discussion forums.

Like any gun group, its members' reasons vary. Most, Hoeber said, are "gun geeks" who love the mechanical tinkering that goes with collecting, maintaining and sometimes customizing their guns. "Guns are fun to play with," she said.

Some are hunters, some target shooters, some more concerned with self-defense. But all seem to seek rational space between the competing rhetoric -- from the NRA's "from my cold, dead hands" style to the "ban 'em all" mantra of some gun-control advocates. That, club members say, does little more than keep both sides in business.

Felix Hunziker, a Richmond architect and registered Democrat, says he's "an independent-minded guy whose values range across the political spectrum" who was happy to join the club recently.

"All too often, the mere mention of firearms turns otherwise normal people into polarized zealots," said Hunziker, 48. "I've been a member of many gun organizations, and the Liberal Gun Club is the first one that seems to straddle the great divide. For me, that's like discovering my long-lost tribe."

Hoeber, who has described herself online as "a longtime queer, kink, trans, sex-positive, feminist, social justice activist and a devout pervert," said political engagement is one of the chapter's goals, though members aren't pressured to reach a consensus on everything.

"We are a really big tent," said chapter vice president Eric Wooten, 44, of Atascadero. A former lobbyist for left-leaning causes, Wooten said the club has everyone from libertarian-leaning Eisenhower Republican types to "full-on socialists who can quote Lenin and Marx."

What unites them is the idea that gun control too often is offered as a placebo for society's real problems. When a Democratic lawmaker calls for taxing ammunition or banning high-capacity magazines -- which club members think will affect only law-abiding citizens and have no effect on violent crime -- all Hoeber hears is, "I'm not going to do anything to actually get anyone in West Oakland a job."

"It's a big dodge," she said, "a way of not doing all the things that are supposed to be the liberal ways to solve these problems" -- things such as more money for schools, "real socialized medicine" and urban policies focused less on attracting or retaining sports teams and more on creating jobs.

Dallas Stout, president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, said he's glad people are crossing partisan lines on gun issues because "any time people talk about these things, something good can come of it."

However, Stout said, "Clearly we have a gun problem in this country and people are dying because of it." Gun restrictions "have halved the firearm death rate in California," he said, so when someone liberal or conservative claims such laws don't work "that's like bumper-sticker logic, more of the same old rhetoric that makes this debate so difficult to have."

Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of "Gunfight," a history of America's gun-rights battles, noted that gun control wasn't always a partisan divide. He cited Republican California Gov. Ronald Reagan's 1967 statement that "there's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."

But as poverty and gang violence led to more gun crimes in U.S. cities, Democrats representing such areas rallied around gun control, Winkler said. At the same time, the reborn conservatism of the 1970s and 1980s saw rural, white voters as key supporters. "Appealing to their sense of outrage about gun control was a handy way for the Republican coalition to solidify its base."

Traditional gun-rights groups don't know what to make of the Liberal Gun Club.

"The gun issue is not wholly and solely for conservatives -- it is for anybody who believes in liberty and freedom, no matter what persuasion they are or perspective they have," said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.

However, those beliefs must be uncompromising, he said. Some gun lovers would rather negotiate new gun-control measures, he explained. "We will be scrupulously observant to watch for any tendencies like that from this group or any other."

If the Liberal Gun Club is absolute in its Second Amendment beliefs, "we can fight shoulder to shoulder," Paredes said. Then, when gun rights are safely enshrined, "we can shake hands and then draw swords on other issues."

Hoeber, who cut her activist teeth in the AIDS and gay politics of the 1980s, recalls conservatives who staunchly opposed public health measures such as condom distribution, even as her community was dying around her.

"These are the same people who are the loudest pro-gun voices in American politics. If that was my understanding of who gun owners are, I'd probably want to take their guns away, too," she said. "Those fundamentalist, queer-baiting people who I see as monsters and may be coming for me someday. But they're the only people fighting for my right to have a gun on the day that they come for me."

1) More regulations on lawful gun owners are "overprescribed political placebos" that don't address the societal problems that cause violence. They'd rather see better education and mental-health care, and policies to help end poverty, homelessness and unemployment.

2) There's a need for "objective, publicly funded research into issues of all types of violence, including firearms violence. Authoritative statistics must be the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of policy proposals."

3) Taxes and fees on guns and ammunition are unjust "class barriers to firearms ownership" that disproportionately affect the poor and recreational shooters while doing nothing to curb crime.

4) California's 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases should be waived for those who can prove they already own a similar firearm.

5) Citizens have the right to legally carry concealed weapons, so long as they meet appropriate safety standards.

-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.